Readers respond to gun suppressors, politicized firefighters and more

Letters to the editor

Readers respond to "Not Silent, Still Deadly" (10/12/17), our story about the Spokane Police Department equipping its service rifles with sound suppressors:

Steven Bateman: While I don't like the suppressors, I understand the point of them. Firearms are loud, and suppressors don't turn people into gun wielding murder ghosts. They will preserve the hearing of people who occasionally (or frequently, depending) have to fire them.

Benjamin Zgak: Well said. While I personally like suppressors, I respect your opinion. I really wish others would educate themselves and articulate their thoughts the same way you have. "Silencing" a firearm is near impossible. The closest you will ever get to a "silenced" weapon is a suppressed .22 with subsonic ammunition. What we see in movies is pure fiction.

Aaron Kirk: Having personally shot a high power rifle with and without a suppressor I can tell you this is a good thing for the officers. The difference is impressive. ♦

Jerry Goertz: Prop 2 is a waste of time and taxpayers' money. Local and state jurisdictions have no authority over the railroads. It's federally regulated.

Sheri Chin: Good! We don't need the risk in the middle of such an urban area.

Linda McHenry: Firefighters are the ones who will be responsible for responding to the fiery explosion when one of these tankers derails from the elevated track running in front of LC, so I guess they probably know what they're talking about. ♦

Readers respond to "Hard To Get" (10/12/17), our story about teenage pot use hitting a 20-year low:

Elizabeth Parker: There are worse things than cannabis for teens. I used it often as a teen, and got great grades, played on a girl's flag football team, was in 4-H with my horse, etc. So.